Reasons I'm agnostic

[maestroanth]

F

[Kylyssa]

Plus, if in the end we are just dust in the ground (which inevitably the whole human species as well on this planet), morality is simply impotent.  As an animal I have many so called "evil" pleasures.  Do you think simply law would stop me?  If all there is to life is fulfillment of bodily pleasures, I might as well get out all those good and evil pleasures (even if it shortens my life) and go out with a bang!  It's the whole idea of a spirit or will that keeps me from commiting evil bodily pleasures (I feel that is innate because I was raised in an abusive home until I was eight, and after still had it hard, but even witnessing this as a child, I knew it was wrong).

Morality was created by us, creatures which die and become dust.  So why would it be impotent?  It's based off practices beneficial to our survival as a species.  Morals spring from our emotions and feelings - empathy, love, responsibility.  Other animals have expressed these feelings as well.  Mammals wouldn't exist without some feelings parental love.  We mammals are some of the flimsiest infants in the animal world, if our parents felt no love or empathy they'd have dropped us behind a bush instead of raising us.  

People who behave as you suggest - entirely without regard to others or themselves - are called sociopaths.  If everyone who wasn't afraid of Hell behaved that way, the prisons would be full of atheists instead of Christians and other theists.  

If law wouldn't stop you that would mean you either had the desire to seek punishment, you had delusions, or you were otherwise intellectually damaged.  Jail is uncomfortable and doesn't allow you to do all those pleasurable things.  Even sociopaths can reason and decide not to break laws.  The consequences here on earth are bad enough.  Animals don't like to be caged or punished.  Why do you figure humans are too stupid to feel the same?

[Kylyssa]

I think it's foolish to practically dictate something doesn't exist (God, afterlife, another reality that exists beyond we can experience with our 5 senses); as well as stating something does without experience or proof.  

You simply don't understand what an atheist is.  Atheists don't believe in God - full stop.  Atheists don't think God is real.  Most atheists won't say, "I know for certain that no unknown being exists."  

It's all about probability and logic.  Reality has a certain logic and consistency to it, discernible natural "laws" which are generally consistent.    

When the only way for something to exist is for it to be outside of the observable and to defy logic plus to break those natural "laws" - it seems unlikely.  If the reason for believing that particular thing is fear and wishful thinking, then it becomes far less likely, in my opinion.  

Animals around us are much like us.  They are conceived, they are born, they grow and live, and eventually they die and decay.  Why would we be any different from any other animal in that regard?  If you have to add magic to an equation to make it work, it's probably a poor equation.

I don't know where you live but in the US it is generally the existence of God which is dictated.

I also suggest you look up the term 'agnostic atheist' which is what many atheists are.  They used to be able to go by the term 'agnostic' but the meaning of the word 'agnostic' has changed so much, to include weak theists.  There also is a common thought that 'agnostic' means one thinks there is a 50/50 chance of God's existence or some such thing.  Because this leads to theists thinking that the agnostic is merely a wavering believer it invites proselytizing.  So the people who don't think God is real but do not claim to know that God isn't real with 100% certainty now must identify as agnostic atheists or simply atheists to avoid being considered weak theists or backsliders.

[curiosityandthecat]

How can you simply say there is nothing outside our 5 senses?

Failing in 5... 4... 3... 2...



No atheist with more than four working brain cells would ever make that claim. Here's three things, just off the top of my head, that are outside our five senses: neutrinos, x-rays, God. Sing it with me, everybody!

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

[joeactor]

Ok, I'm agnostic... and a theist... and I have a different view on this from maestroanth.

Agnostic simply means without knowledge.
You can be an Agnostic Theist, Agnostic Atheist, or just Agnostic.
You seem to be an Agnostic Theist (belief in god), yet you want to define god... that's kind of not agnostic IMHO.

There is the known, the unknown, and the unknowable.

For me, god is either unknown or unknowable... and that even includes god's existence.

Seems like everyone wants polarity.

"I Don't Know" is a valid response.
It doesn't mean I will stop trying to find out, but in the case of god, I'm leaning toward "unknowable".

Meh, what do I know?,
JoeActor

[maestroanth]

F

[maestroanth]

My definitions on God are really only hypothesis....that do seem fathomable.

The issue is if there was an uncaused cause that started all this stuff, or time is simply infinite both past and future.  Or if the big bang theory is right, maybe time is circular?  Even if you believe in infinity, that means almost an infinite possibilites can happen and even by natural phenomenon we can regain consciousness in either another similar DNA type or what-not no?

[Enoch Root]

I've never liked the agnostic 'we can't know if there's a supreme being or not' type approach.

Strictly speaking, we can't be sure that anything doesn't exist. There's absolutely no way I can prove that there's not a invisible, intangible purple dinosaur lurking just outside my field of view. But I don't take the view that there "may be a purple dinosaur", or that "we can't know if there's a purple dinosaur". I simply take the view that "there's no purple dinosaur floating outside my field of view".

If someone wants to convince me that there is a purple dinosaur, the onus is on them to provide tangible proof - not rhetorical games, not philosophical musings, but actual, tangible proof.

The problem with agnosticism is that it starts from the premise that there may be a supreme being, and goes from there. And I can't see any good reason to start from that premise.

[maestroanth]

F

[Ihateyoumike]

There are also mammals that eat their children and literally a Tom cat I remember as a small kid literally came and killed a litter of our kittens.  You forget there are evil feelings as well - revenge, hate, and jealousy which do have fulfillment if completed successfully.  If jail is such a horrible place, one can always just kill oneself.

Now, I'm no tomcat expert, but if I were a hungry tomcat with a litter of kitten-nuggets available to me, I'd eat them too. That's called the food chain. Just because they were adorable kittens does not make the tomcat evil, just hungry. If jail is such a horrible place, you always have the option of not committing a crime to end up there, there's no need to get suicide involved.

And btw, it's not the fear of Hell that makes me want to keep w/e soul I may have intact. I think it was Aristotle who accepted death because he felt he had a soul which helped him exercise his willpower; how can you tell me he's wrong?

I don't believe in hell. I don't believe in a "soul". How can you tell me I'm wrong? Well, very easily actually, just tell me I'm wrong. I'll rephrase it. Prove to me I'm wrong, or accept that you may not be right. If you accept that you may not be right, then you can keep believing in your soul and not have to try to make everyone else believe it. BTW, quoting your source (Aristotle) would make a stronger point than simply saying, "I think it was Aristotle who..."

And to the guy who said failing in 5.4...3 just shuddup attack the issues not the person.

(edit: After posting this response, I saw that maestroanth edited this post and added more to this sentence, I will keep my response to the original 1 liner here.)

Curio tends to make his point in an amusing way. I personally like that approach. Perhaps you need to read the post again because Curio attacked your issue which you brought forth quite well. I would advise you to not be using "shuddup" as an argument here as it is quite childish and will only assist in alienating you from the educated members of this great board.

And to the guy saying "I don't know" that's my point as well. I'm saying if I truely believed all we become is dust in the end (no spirit or anything), logically, shouldn't I become mormon or hell just kidnap a bunch of women so I can have children with them all to insure my genes live on even after I die?

That guy would be joeactor. A little hint for you: while you are composing a post, you may look farther down the page, and it will show the previous posts so that you may quote the person, or at least be able to respond to the poster by name. This will save others time spent looking to find out who you are replying to, and what you are replying to.
Back on topic: How would not believing in a soul equate to becoming a mormon or kidnapping children? This makes no sense. If your concern is simply the instinctual task of reproducing, then do what everyone else does, attract a mate and reproduce. If you cannot do that, I'm sorry, but that's the way life works. If you feel you need to kidnap women to impregnate them, well then I hope you do not reproduce.

I guess I am more of an agnostic theist, but Dawkin's is somewhat naive thinking that losing religion would lessen war or violence. life has always been self-destructive one way or another; a biologist should know that.

Good for you. Be an agnostic theist. From my opinion of you, simply based on what I've read so far, you seem to be more of an anti-atheist theist.
As for life being self-destructive, I would like for you to explain that concept to me. I know of the food chain, which is life sustaining. Yes, animals destroy other animals and plants for food, which keeps life living. Self-destructive would be something entirely different. If life were self-destructive, then there would be too much destroying of life to sustain life.

One last thought, I have noticed that you are new to the board and would like to suggest that you introduce yourself in the "introductions" section of the forum. I would like to be able to formally welcome you to the forum in your own introduction thread.  

[curiosityandthecat]

And to the guy who said failing in 5.4...3 just shuddup attack the issues not the person.  X-rays are part of those senses, we "See" the resulting image right?   "Observation of a neutrino hitting a proton in a bubble chamber. The collision occurred at the point where three tracks emanate on the right of the photograph."  (meh a pic was suppose to post too)  Again it takes heightening of our senses but we still use them.

Who said I was attacking anything? I was just pointing out the obvious fail. Five senses: touch, taste, smell, hearing, sight. We can measure effects of things we can't observe directly, using x-ray sensitive film or electron scanning microscopes. As we are, unaided, there is much more "outside our 5 senses" than within their respective realms (I'll elaborate on this if needed). The difference, as demonstrated by my  reference to Sesame Street, is that we have documented, empirical, testable evidence that the first two examples I gave exist, whereas the third, well...

If you really are an agnostic, then I applaud your loyalty to epistemic uncertainty. On the other hand, your arguments are tired, feeble and sophomoric, so it smells trollish.

Curio tends to make his point in an amusing way. I personally like that approach. Perhaps you need to read the post again because Curio attacked your issue which you brought forth quite well. I would advise you to not be using "shuddup" as an argument here as it is quite childish and will only assist in alienating you from the educated members of this great board.

I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.

[Kylyssa]

You also forget that humans DO go around raping and slaughtering each other with theists being slightly more likely to do so than atheists.  If it's the supernatural belief that makes people behave then why are religious people more likely to commit crimes?

Actually the tomcat eating the kittens thing is not about hunger but about killing the kittens that are not his and making their mothers available to bear his kittens.

Last I checked, humans and cats aren't that closely related.

But hey, if you're the kind of guy who is only prevented from engaging in your constant desire to rape and kill by believing in God, then go for it.  Most people have been socialized to not rape and kill and, of course, not to eat their playmates even in societies and families without Jebus to tell them so.

[maestroanth]

F

[Whitney]

Imo, whether a god exists or not, morality is very obviously not based on the will of a god or any other all controlling force.  Morality has changed across times and cultures and will continue to do so.  Please research Social Contract Theory, Moral Relativism, and Ethical Egoism.

I don't know what you mean by bodily pleasures being evil.  I guess you are talking about sex and, other than rape/molestation, there is no reason to view sexual acts as immoral unless you have a religious view that tells you it is wrong to have sex.  

Most people have a quality we call empathy (if you don't feel empathy at all you have a mental disorder) which makes them be able to relate to and feel bad when other humans are harmed (often it 'misfires' and makes us feel bad for cute animals too).  This makes most people no want to cause harm to anything that they can empasize with.  Racism, sexism, hate of other religious or sexual preferences can lead to viewing others as less human and breaks the ability to emphasise with them.

Also, please read the following post "What is an atheist".  It will help you to understand what most of us mean when we say atheist:  viewtopic.php?f=2&t=830&start=0  (I'm a level 6 atheist)

[Ihateyoumike]

maestroanth, it seems to me that you may not fully understand the concept of atheism, and what it entails. I would very much suggest that you read the thread which Whitney posted as it will give you a good framework for what atheism is.
For Theists: What is an Atheist?

...but if I simply deny the existence of a soul or will and accept at the end we are just dust (all of human beings really), so why does it all matter?

It appears to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the fear of the idea of no afterlife has you worried. The thought that this life is everything can be a major one to cope with. That was the thought which I probably had the hardest digesting while transitioning from a religious person to an atheist. That being said, I am excited to think that this life is all there is, and am still awed with all the beauty in this world. I think I have more of a reason to live my life as well as I possibly can since this is the only shot I have. I see "people of faith" seemingly living to die everyday, and it saddens me, because they are not living for this earth. I can not imagine spending my entire life worrying about not making it into the positive afterlife, it seems I would be missing out on this life.
If you have the spare time, I would suggest reading through this thread as well:
Has anything made you question your non-belief?
This thread has some good information from my fellow atheists about what thoughts and ideas they had to overcome while in the transition to atheism from theism.
If I was correct, and you are having a hard time dealing with the idea of an "atheist death", this thread will be worth checking out as well:
I need help with death from fellow atheists please
There are many threads on this board which may be able to help you as well. Just browse around on this site for a while. There are so many helpful and intelligent people here who are happy to help you with any questions you have.
Again, welcome to the forum, and I'll be looking for your introduction soon.